Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 24

[edit]

Category:Hudson Yards

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the article name. Note I elected to not speedy since Hudson Yards is a redirect, so there might be some discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Traditional Writing

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A muddled up attempt at a category. DexDor (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Instrumentation Engineering

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: userified to User:Ajshetty/Instrumentation engineering, category now to be deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 06:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Uncited article in category space. May be appropriate to userfy. DexDor (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Answers in Genesis staff and speakers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete; if someone creates Category:Answers in Genesis people and limits it to people who are closely affiliated to that group, that category may be nominated and then the issue can be considered anew. But there's clear consensus here that being a speaker at AiG events would not be defining for the speaker. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A random collection of people from an organisation devoted to promoting pseudoscientific nonsense who, shock horror, stand up and advocate for that organisation's pseudoscientific nonsense. I suppose we could set up a category for signatories to Project Steve. There are very many more of them. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know why this organization in particular had its own category. All members of the category are in the parent Category:Christian creationists, except for one, Jan Peczkis, who is not identified as a Christian, and so is in Category:Creationists. StAnselm (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To begin with the clear animus in the nomination makes it suspect. Secondly, these people clearly have as a notable trait their connection to the organization. Whether these people are actually notable is another question. I would not be surprised if some would not meet our notability guidelines, but I have not looked into it at all. What is clear is that we have enough articles to justify the category, and this connection is notable to the individuals involved. Connections at this level to an organization are notable and worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no animus against the organisation at all. I do have support Wikipedia's policies mandating that pseudoscientific bullshit is not given undue weight. I presume you don't dispute that AiG is a proponent of pseudoscientific bullshit, since that is an objectively established fact. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are much better and more WP:NPOV ways to state that they are WP:FRINGE than by using the inflammatory (and profane) terminology that was used. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as akin to WP:OCAT by performance. Thanks, StAnselm, for doing the above check, otherwise I would have said upmerge. Despite my support for the nomination, I must take the nominator to task for making this an attack instead of sticking to WP:NPOV. We need policy-based justifications here, whatever our views of the subject matter. – Fayenatic London 07:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential keep as Category:Answers in Genesis people. Creationism is a sincerely held belief. Quite how science and Genesis are to be reconciled is a matter of debate. I do not take their POV, but this is NOT pure bullshit. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename as per Peterkingiron, for now. There are no clear grounds for deletion here. Notable fringe groups are not summarily deleted, even if they are talking nonsense. If it could be established that this category is not defining for the majority of its members then it would fail WP:SMALLCAT, but in this case that would need to be demonstrated on the individual pages. There is not enough here to delete. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm still sticking with my delete !vote, but if it is kept I would support the rename to Category:Answers in Genesis people. StAnselm (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speaking on behalf of this group is not a sufficiently defining aspect of a person to merit a category. The broader Christian creationist category is enough in my opinion. (Also – the commentary on the group rather than the category in this discussion is frankly embarrassing). SFB 13:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the people who are merely fellow creationists who may have spoken at an Answers event don't belong here, and the rest don't form such a large group that they need to be categorized. And, like everyone else, let's maintain civility. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Giles Cooper Award winners

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For people like Tom Stoppard, having received this award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (he is in more appropriate categories such as Category:English radio writers). On some articles (e.g. Fay Weldon) this award isn't mentioned. See WP:OC#AWARD. For info: There is a list at Giles Cooper Awards#List of winners. DexDor (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Commonwealth Universities

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear whether this is intended to be a category for any university in a Commonwealth country (in which case something like "Universities in countries in the Commonwealth of Nations" would be a better name) or for universities that are members of the Association of Commonwealth Universities (in which case the name should be something like "Members of the Association of Commonwealth Universities"). Either way, it does not appear to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic (e.g. the Eastern Mediterranean University article doesn't mention the Commonwealth). For info: an example of a previous CFD for a group of universities is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_10#Category:Coimbra_Group. For info: see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_2#Category:Universities_and_colleges_by_association. DexDor (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Assyrian Empire

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy merge as duplicate of Category:Assyria per WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One subcat, everything else is at parent. Even the page Assyrian Empire redirects to Assyria. trespassers william (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC) trespassers william (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Episode lists without episode numbers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I note that both template talk pages were given notice of this discussion on 24 April, but this has not drawn any defenders here. – Fayenatic London 17:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The documentation for the templates that populate this category, Template:Episode list and Template:Episode list/sublist say that parameter EpisodeNumber is Optional, albeit desirable. Yet the implication of this cat is that the EpisodeNumber is required. Patrollers attempting to clean out this category find that it is littered with so many false positives as to make finding true unintentional EpisodeNumber omissions too difficult to be worth the trouble. For example, in List of Green Acres episodes, the TV movie needed to be numbered 171 in the series to make the categorization go away. List of Cold Feet episodes needed to have its pilot labeled as "episode zero". Template:Character list transcludes this template, so that would imply renaming the category Episode lists without episode numbers and character lists without character numbers. Fortunately only List of Highlander characters and List of The Thick of It characters use that new template, so it's not too late to nip that nonsense in the bud. Why is the generically titled {{Character list}} put in WikiProject Highlander on its talk page? Then we have Silent Witness#Novels, where {{Episode list}} lists novels rather than episodes, and the list is numbered using the Aux1 general purpose parameter, which puts the numbering in a different column. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Coleorrhyncha stubs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Hemiptera stubs and delete template:Coleorrhyncha-stub. All are already within the other parent Category:Coleorrhyncha. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very small stub category. At first glance, does not appear to have enough article to fill a stub category (60) even if all species included. Dawynn (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional deities

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Feel free to prune or split as suggested. – Fayenatic London 16:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Category:Fictional deities to Category:Fictional deities and demigods
  • Nominator's rationale: Some technically aren't "gods" or even "deities" and most are considered "divine" in some way. For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than creating more categories. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Invasions

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: !Delete. Like a 2006 comment on Talk, I don't see the point. Technical aspects of operations are better covered on Category:Military operations by type. Sister cats on Category:Wars by type are mostly about conditions of motives or legal status, and many of the current cat members seem to be mildly POV pushing. trespassers william (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC) trespassers william (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I checked have enaogh legit parents as they are, so I don't propose anything should be done with them. trespassers william (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the article Invasion, they can be either wars, operations or both (offense and counter-offense disscussion at one breath). The Invasion of Normandy et al. are not wars. Note that presently, even Wars by type is under Military Operations, because this parent does concern itself with magnitude.
Right now it is extremely underpopulated, focused on a few countries, which made me think of a history POVs. I beleive that if this category is fully populated, it will resemble Category:Wars, maybe in combination with something in Category:Military operations. trespassers william (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they need to be deleted? trespassers william (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we have Category:Invasions in fiction‎, Category:Cancelled invasions‎ etc then it makes sense to group them all under Category:Invasions. Most "X in Y" categories have a parent category for both X and Y. DexDor (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:DexDor, sorry for the pause, has the ball gotten to my court? If it isn't solid enough for proper topics, it shouldn't be kept just for ephemera to haunt. Invasions in fiction would go under Category:Wars in fiction or Category:Military fiction. Cancelled invasions, is already under Category:Cancelled military operations. Are you sure there is any good in attaching them to the other branch? Who would miss them there? trespassers william (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a good reason to delete Category:Invasions then surely that same reason also applies to Category:Invasions of the United Kingdom‎, Category:Invasions by the United States‎ etc - either CFD them all together or start by CFDing the lower categories. Deleting just the top "invasion" category would make it harder to navigate between the remaining "invasion" categories. DexDor (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Compositions by Rahul Dev Burman

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are like the recent decision for Ilaiyaraaja; again, the contents are primarily films for which these composers wrote the score. They should be moved to the new names. This nomination is without prejudice to re-creating the categories if there are sufficient other types of notable composition by each composer. – Fayenatic London 12:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Category:Music composed by ABC (will have 2 categories)
1.1. Category:Songs composed by ABC (will have articles about songs)
1.2. Category:Films with music composed by ABC (will have 2 categories)
1.2.1. Category:Films with songs composed by ABC (will have articles about films)
1.2.2. Category:Films with background scores composed by ABC (will have articles about films)
Over categorization is it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New-Nollywood films

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (which, practically speaking, means a straight delete since all articles are already in the target category or an appropriate subcategory). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Original research category. Nothing even mentioned on the Nollywood article to suggest this is true. Merge into main country category. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the Nollywood article isn't up to date. the category is a very notable topic, readers may want to view films that belong to that category. you can check these links to prove that it is a worthy category.
It is not an Original research.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then again, the term doesn't always refer to Nigerian films. So it can't be merged into the category.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is definitely a notable category and would form a very essential arrangement. My only problem with it is the Wikipedian definition for it. There are some films that meets his defination that are not New-Nollywood films! Here are a few more links to showcase its notability 1, 2, 3. Darreg (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I didn't see any part of WP:CAT that states that some categories shouldn't be created, or infact anything related to what y'all are trying to say. Where did you guys invent your "standard" from?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EDITCONSENSUS. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2014 April 2 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Actors of European descent

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus, except on the fact that if it is to exist, it should generally only be a container category and should not be applied directly to articles. There was general agreement on that point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need this category - actors of european descent do not have a sufficient relation with the topic to merit this category in terms of being spoken of specially. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many people all over world who are of European descent and they are known to have different occupations. For example, actors and actresses. I understand that this category is new but it's an interesting topic and needs to be expanded. Are you saying that categorizing pages in Category:People of European descent by their various occupations is not important? See also: Category:American actors of Chinese descent. Have you nominated that too? Stanleytux (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole (x people of y descent) is problematic but don't have the energy to address it...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just shoot it and put it out of its misery! I pretty much agree with you. The entire descent tree is full of subjectivity. No one has been able to provide objective inclusion criteria. If you nominate one category someone will complain that you are cherry picking one category. If you try a mass nomination, the someone will complain that the nomination covers too much and the few exceptions can not be adequately discussed. My question is how many generations removed before you no longer qualify or what percentage of your blood is needed to qualify. If we don't have answers to those questions, then we must delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have more responses to the suggestion that this be retained as a {{container category}} (and tagged as such), and for editors who support deletion/merger to clarify why they support removing this category while we retain the parallel Category:Actors of Asian descent.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unmaintainable race/ethnic category; yes other crap exists like the Asian one and all the others, which ought to be axed too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. All "descent" categories should be deleted as the ethnicity/nationality of a persons great-grandparents is rarely a WP:DEFINING characteristic and can lead to an article being in a lot of categories. However, the deletion should start with the lower categories (e.g. Category:Male actors of Italian descent) and work up or do the whole lot in one go. DexDor (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a friend who was at least as removed from China as his great-grandparents, and only on his father's side did he have Chinese ancestry, but I would not argue his descent was not defining. I could come up with lots of other cases for other ancestries. If you have 8 different descents from all 8 great-grandparents that is one thing, and there are people whose descent is less than defining, but there are people for whom it is very defining. Arguably though these descent categories were made more to bolster Italian-American feelings of success than because all the people so categorized were clearly of Italian descent. The big problem is that we have no clear way to distinguish the person who we know had some Cornish descent, but they never cared, and the person who ate Cornish food and sang Cornish songs, even though they lived their whole life in Pennsylvania.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a container category only. As there is a parent Category:People of European descent, I can't think of a good reason to remove this as a part of the hierarchy and an aid to navigation. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEak keep but only as a container cat. Most of the content is middle European countries. Booian people of fooan sescetn is a well established tree. It was altered to that format some years ago, but unfortunately the US categories were left unchanged. Despite a recent announcement Cornish (which is not a sub-cat) does not provide a useful case study for the currnet issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the entire tree of Category:People by ethnic or national descent, since 'descent' is an unbounded term. (At the very best you might have category trees like 'people who permanently emigrated' and 'children of people who permanently emigrated'.) Marcocapelle (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Soundtracks by Indian artists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is in the hierarchy Category:Soundtracks by artist nationality which is intended to collate sub-categories by artist (performer). However, all the sub-categories are by composer, not performer; they are already also categorised in Category:Soundtracks by composer. (In some cases, the composers also performed a minority of the songs, but the albums are predominantly performed by "various artists" rather than the composers.) Filmi is music of Indian cinema, and I think this would make a better name. The move should be without prejudice to re-creation if categories of soundtrack albums by performer in India turn up later. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hydrogen rocket engines

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename:

Fayenatic London 14:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: These are rocket engines that use the named propellent for fuel. They aren't rockets for it, or rockets used by it - "Foo-fuelled" should be the standard for this sort of thing. The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—on all three proposals. The new names would be more clear, as bipropellant rocket engines—of which H2, RP-1, and methane engines all are—all have an oxidizer as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support for these.
What's to happen with cats such as Category:Hydrogen peroxide (cold cycle) rocket engines and Category:Hydrogen peroxide (hot cycle) rocket engines, or other monopropellants? Are we going to create oxidiser categories in similar fashion?
While I've got your attention, can we also please avoid some recent rocket motor renames, such as Waxwing (Rocket motor) to Waxwing (rocket engine). There is a strong convention that solid fuels are motors, not engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realised afterwards that that last one was a mis-step for exactly that reason, thanks for fixing it because I did. I believe a Category:Hydrogen peroxide-fueled rocket engines would be appropriate, but not by-cycle. Not sure about oxidisers. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2014 April 8 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that there may be an alternative here avoiding the "fueled"/"fuelled" ENGVAR debate, although it will make the category titles longer. What do people think of the following titles?

This would also allow for "Monopropllant rocket engines" to become "Rocket engines using monopropellant", matching the others, whereas the original proposal would leave it the 'odd cat out'. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Propellant" has a majorly different meaning from "fuel", given that we're usually talking about bipropellant engines and so need to distinguish these two. It would be a really bad idea for a trivial issue of grammar or language to escalate itself up into making such a semantic difference. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "fueled" is better, myself (the fact that "monopropellant" can be fit into the second scheme but not the first notwithstanding), but I figured it was a good idea to at least throw it at the wall and see if it stuck. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see the point raised by Andy, and am aware of the distinction between fuel and oxidizer in bipropellant engines. It is fairly rare that any of hydrogen, methane, or kerosene are used as cold-gas thruster (monopropellant) engines. However, it is possible to do so, has been tested, and is even proposed for some corner-case uses; see for example ACES which proposes to use hydrogen boil-off on long term storage of a combination upper-stage/in-space-propellant-storage-facility directly as propellant, and not as a fuel to be combined with an oxidizer, for long-term attitude control and small orbital adjustments. In other words, I believe that Category:Rocket engines using xxx propellant would have a scope that is a bit wider, and would include BOTH hydrogen-fueled bipropellant rocket engines AND hydrogen-propellant cold gas thrusters such as proposed for ACES.
(I'll also say that I can't wait until widespread global English practice eliminates more and more of the double-consonants in the various varieties of spelled English. But I realize that time is not here at this time.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several "hot" monopropellant hydrogen engines, depending on your definition of rocket, it would fit (thermal instead of combustion engines (ie. NERVA), plasma, etc) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cold cycle hydrogen peroxide is an important monopropellant, and also an important oxidiser in hot cycle engines. Categorization should distinguish these. There's little point in any categorization beyond "burny hot stuff" unless we can achieve useful and subject-relevant categorization like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why hydrogen peroxide =/= hydrogen (the latter's common useage in rocketry meaning LH2). - The Bushranger One ping only 03:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Piano rock songs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category deleted once before see CfD here. I can see a reason for keep, and I can see good reasons to delete, Is any song with a piano on it to be categorized? and most importantly, song articles are just that, about songs, not about specific recordings of songs. So is arrangement of a song defining? Twinkle says I have to decide to delete to nominate, but I am happier with a consensus - either way. Richhoncho (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question is piano rock recognized as a genre separate from other rock genres? It seems most of these could be just rock or rock ballads. Genre categorization is always a bit tricky. I have no strong opinions yet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. I would say no, a look at Category:Rock songs by genre makes me think a pruning of these categories is necessary. Reggae rock songs? --Richhoncho (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2014 April 8 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Czechoslovak people of World War II

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Nominator's rationale: From 1918 to 1991, the country was Czechoslovakia. The Czech Republic and Slovakia did not exist as separate countries. The demonym of Czechoslovakia was Czechoslovak.Hoops gza (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is. A look at the parent category structure shows that these are nationality categories, not country categories. Czech people and Slovak people are different nationalities and so are appropriately currently categorized here. Hmains (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The parent category structure is not real proof of anything. These categories might have been falsely created based on modern geographical locations of the people's places of birth/residence. I'm no expert on Czechoslovakia, but I'm not sure that Czechia and Slovakia were even separate states during the time of Czechoslovakia, which would mean that they were not separate nationalities at that time. Perhaps someone with more knowledge in the field knows.Hoops gza (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted from CFD 2014 April 13 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:London Symphony Orchestra film scores

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger One ping only 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The contents are not films, but soundtrack albums. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Soundtracks by composer

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are soundtracks categorised by composer, not albums by artist (performer). The parent Category:Soundtracks by composer is new and sparsely populated, so there is not yet a sufficiently established pattern for a speedy nomination. – Fayenatic London 10:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Geography of Queens County, New York

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 19:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The other boroughs of New York City all use the borough name, not the county name. While the "New York" part is the way the categories related to Queens are named (due to ambiguity with Queen), the "County" is not. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them - Category:Geography of Staten Island, although its subcategories are split. Kennethaw88talk 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done fixed. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:World War II desert airfields

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split to relevant geographical sub-cat of Category:World War II airfields. It may be that they are all already so categorised. As for the split suggested by user:The Bushranger, some member pages are in the US; and I do not see an obvious benefit in a new North Africa category as this would cut across some sub-cats of Category:World War II airfields in Africa. – Fayenatic London 19:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being in a desert is not especially WP:DEFINING for an airfield, and there is no "Desert airfields" or "Airfields by biome" category tree. The Bushranger One ping only 03:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lehigh Valley Hospitals

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the format of other subcategories in Category:Hospitals in Pennsylvania. The hospitals are located in a place and it does not own the hospitals. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.